• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control?

  • Total voters
    64
  • Poll closed .
Bob Blaylock said:
I would have to say that passing a law requiring an entire industry to adopt a particular practice certainly calls for there being some fairly solid evidence that this practice will have the desired effect.
Click to expand...

While I would not argue for command and control measures, we've seen the desired effect in pretty much every country that BC became easily accessable.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
We've only seen it used as a political issue. This doesn't prove that there is not a valid underlying concern, that calls for some government policy to address, but the burden certainly should belong on those who wish to claim that there is such a need calling for such a policy, to prove it.
Click to expand...

It's pretty straightforward, really. In addition to the obvious public policy benefits of reducing unwanted pregnancies by providing women with free access to something they might not otherwise be able to afford, birth control pills are used by women for a variety of non-pregnancy related issues (e.g. menstrual cramps, endometriosis, etc). In fact apparently slightly more than half of all women who use birth control use it at least partially for non-pregnancy reasons (I've personally had a couple of girlfriends who have done so). These are legitimate health concerns, and given that many if not most women (and men as well) have limited amounts of control over where they receive medical treatment, it makes sense to require that this basic women's health treatment be made available in all medical facilities, and be provided by all insurers.
 
VanceMack said:
Because it is. Even Ms Fluke admitted SHE was covered through her religious schools insurance policy for medical indicated birth control. Her whole reason de force was some fabricated 'friend' that was allegedly denied contraceptives...and not by the school, or even by an insurance company, but by a drug store. Go watch her 'testimony' and in it she ADMITS that she as a student at the catholic school is actually covered. So where is the issue? Insurance companies are not en masse denying people legitimate medical needs birth control. The ONLY reason this came up in the first place was the current administration attempted to force the Catholic Church to change their policy.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was the other way around. The Catholic bishops have been trying to assert themselves into the political arena for years in order to try and remain relevant in the modern age. It was the Bishops who were attempting to force the government to change it's policy of separation of church and state and to force private insurance companys to stop offering birth control not only for Catholic hospital employees but for any business in the private sector.

It's not the public that will be paying for birth control pills, it's the insurance companys.
 
Aderleth said:
Obviously it's politically driven, but that doesn't mean the underlying concern isn't valid. Why do you think it isn't?
Click to expand...
Because birth control isn't necessary to preserve health or life, which is what policies are supposed to pay for. This equates to people wanting "freebies" mandated.
 
iguanaman said:
How many times do you need to hear this before it sinks in? It is cheaper for ins cos. to provide free birth control than to pay for the results of not including it.
This has nothing to do with money, it is purely about religous predjudice about contraception. The church wants us to pay more to legislate their religous convictions.
That is unacceptable according to our Constitution PERIOD.
Click to expand...
You have no clue here. It is not cheaper in aggregate numbers, it isn't cheaper when demand for the "freebies" goes up, and either way it's not my responsibility to pay for it, which is what happens in mandated coverage. This isn't religious, it's numbers.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Because birth control isn't necessary to preserve health or life, which is what policies are supposed to pay for. This equates to people wanting "freebies" mandated.
Click to expand...

Take a look at post #601 for my response to that.
 
Aderleth said:
Take a look at post #601 for my response to that.
Click to expand...
I worked in the industry. If it was medically necessary it would be waivered in to coverage with a simple call from the person's doctor, it's not the issue you think it is.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I worked in the industry. If it was medically necessary it would be waivered in to coverage with a simple call from the person's doctor, it's not the issue you think it is.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was medically necessary, just medically useful. Also good public policy.
 
Aderleth said:
I didn't say it was medically necessary, just medically useful. Also good public policy.
Click to expand...
Now you know that that is not why it's a popular mandate, it's a lifestyle "medication" it's basic hormonal therapy but OPTIONAL, it's an elective treatment which is why it wasn't universally covered by the industry. As I will restate and you haven't attempted to counter, when it was deemed medically necessary by a doctor companies would cover it as a general rule, so why then other than a niche political stunt would it need to be mandated? Unless it's to buy off a segment of the voters, which is the WORST type of policy.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You have no clue here. It is not cheaper in aggregate numbers, it isn't cheaper when demand for the "freebies" goes up, and either way it's not my responsibility to pay for it, which is what happens in mandated coverage. This isn't religious, it's numbers.
Click to expand...

Sorry but cheaper means cheaper. Like most preventative medicine is. It is not rocket science.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Now you know that that is not why it's a popular mandate, it's a lifestyle "medication" it's basic hormonal therapy but OPTIONAL, it's an elective treatment which is why it wasn't universally covered by the industry. As I will restate and you haven't attempted to counter, when it was deemed medically necessary by a doctor companies would cover it as a general rule, so why then other than a niche political stunt would it need to be mandated? Unless it's to buy off a segment of the voters, which is the WORST type of policy.
Click to expand...

Again: because it's good public policy, and provides useful health benefits to women, and lots of them (lots of women that is). I can turn this around on you compeletely - the only reason this is remotely contentious is because certain segments of the population have issues with sex. We'd never have this argument about, say, prescription painkillers. They are also frequently not medically necessary, but I doubt there's a hospital in the country that doesn't have them, and I doubt there's an insurance program that doesn't cover them (possibly with a co-pay of course).

As a practical matter this is a no-brainer:

1) Increasing access to birth control reduces unwanted pregnancies, which saves everyone money and reduces the likelihood of abortions.

2) The other health concerns dealt with by birth control pills range from uncomfortable (menstrual cramps) to potentially very serious (endometriosis).

What possible reason is there not to provide remedies to these things?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Because birth control isn't necessary to preserve health or life, which is what policies are supposed to pay for. This equates to people wanting "freebies" mandated.
Click to expand...

No...I don't think you're giving proper credit to how important it is for women to be able to control when they can or can't get pregnant. There's massive benefits to the woman as well as society. There's a lot of people that shouldn't have children when they do and would benefit from waiting. the reality is...people are gonna bang! We're humans.
 
iliveonramen said:
No...I don't think you're giving proper credit to how important it is for women to be able to control when they can or can't get pregnant. There's massive benefits to the woman as well as society. There's a lot of people that shouldn't have children when they do and would benefit from waiting. the reality is...people are gonna bang! We're humans.
Click to expand...
So babies are a problem now? Please feel free to give a detailed explanation, considering that's how the species has continued on for millions of years.
 
iguanaman said:
Sorry but cheaper means cheaper. Like most preventative medicine is. It is not rocket science.
Click to expand...
It's not cheaper in the aggregate, don't try to bull**** me.
 
Aderleth said:
Again: because it's good public policy, and provides useful health benefits to women, and lots of them (lots of women that is). I can turn this around on you compeletely - the only reason this is remotely contentious is because certain segments of the population have issues with sex. We'd never have this argument about, say, prescription painkillers. They are also frequently not medically necessary, but I doubt there's a hospital in the country that doesn't have them, and I doubt there's an insurance program that doesn't cover them (possibly with a co-pay of course).

As a practical matter this is a no-brainer:

1) Increasing access to birth control reduces unwanted pregnancies, which saves everyone money and reduces the likelihood of abortions.

2) The other health concerns dealt with by birth control pills range from uncomfortable (menstrual cramps) to potentially very serious (endometriosis).

What possible reason is there not to provide remedies to these things?
Click to expand...
It's obviously not a no brainer because you haven't countered the aggregate argument, just said "it's cheaper". Recurring costs without medical benefit are not what insurance is about, insurance isn't about funding a lifestyle which is what BC typically is used for. You cannot with a straight face state that millions of women using a recurring expense montly is going to save money, that is completely impossible.
 
LaMidRighter said:
So babies are a problem now? Please feel free to give a detailed explanation, considering that's how the species has continued on for millions of years.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that people should no longer have children? I stated the importance of control...as in having a child with someone you will spend the rest of your life with, having a child at an age where you're established to support them, having a child in good economic times instead of in say...a time of high unemployment and uncertainty.

The reality is young folk have sex...but based on realities of the world...the increased importance of education or the fact that coming out of high school makes it tough to support yourself much less a family....birthcontrol is a pretty darn effective way of giving that control to women.
 
iliveonramen said:
Where did I say that people should no longer have children? I stated the importance of control...as in having a child with someone you will spend the rest of your life with, having a child at an age where you're established to support them, having a child in good economic times instead of in say...a time of high unemployment and uncertainty.

The reality is young folk have sex...but based on realities of the world...the increased importance of education or the fact that coming out of high school makes it tough to support yourself much less a family....birthcontrol is a pretty darn effective way of giving that control to women.
Click to expand...
Birth control = less or no babies, you are the one saying "birth control is a benefit to society", well guess what, we are in a negative birth period in U.S. history right now, IOW we are not replacing ourselves at a sufficient rate. I don't think that it's my business to tell people whether or not they should start a family but I am NOT responsible for the direction they choose, nor for funding it.
 
LaMidRighter said:
It's obviously not a no brainer because you haven't countered the aggregate argument, just said "it's cheaper". Recurring costs without medical benefit are not what insurance is about, insurance isn't about funding a lifestyle which is what BC typically is used for. You cannot with a straight face state that millions of women using a recurring expense montly is going to save money, that is completely impossible.
Click to expand...

1) It's not completely impossible, although the existing data is admittedly murky. There have been a number of studies done, and they've concluded, generally, that the increase in preventative costs may or may not be offset by the decrease in materinity expenses (it depends, apparently, on the specific plan). I italicized maternity costs, because so far as I can tell no one has taken the further step of looking into cost savings related to having unwanted chiildren running around. I'm sure any given insurer would rather pay for the costs to prevent pregnancy rather than pay for the resultant child until he/she turns 18. The extra $18-20/patient is a pretty good deal compared to paying for a ****-ton of new dependents.

2) You're ignoring the other arguments that I've made that have nothing to do with cost (e.g. reducing abortion rates, providing medical care for various women's heallth issues).

3) Birth control isn't "typically" used for any one thing. More than half of all women (58% according to the Guttmacher institute) who use birth control use it at least partially for non-pregnancy issues. That number rises to a staggering 90% for teenage girls (who, in general, use it mostly if not exclusively for non-pregnancy related reasons).

Conclusion: The argument that this is about supporting a lifestyle choice is specious at best.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Actually, it was the other way around. The Catholic bishops have been trying to assert themselves into the political arena for years in order to try and remain relevant in the modern age. It was the Bishops who were attempting to force the government to change it's policy of separation of church and state and to force private insurance companys to stop offering birth control not only for Catholic hospital employees but for any business in the private sector.

It's not the public that will be paying for birth control pills, it's the insurance companys.
Click to expand...
Riiiiight. THATS why this issue came up...this whole 'war against women'...and NOT because the administration attempted to force them to change. :roll:
 
Aderleth said:
The government certainly has the right to enforce uniform standards for how health insurance operates to the extent that their are legitimate public health concerns in place. That's certainly the case here. There are any number of contexts in which genuine issues of public policty trump religious dogma. This is one such issue. The CHA would exempt not just actual churches, but Catholic run hospitals from the birth control mandate. This creates very real health concerns for any woman who relies on such services.
Click to expand...
Actually they DONT. Your OPINION may be that they should. They dont. But...are you STILL missing the part where Ms Fluke ADMITTED she was not denied coverage and DID in fact receive medically indicated birth control?
 
VanceMack said:
Actually they DONT.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Supreme Court.

VanceMack said:
But...are you STILL missing the part where Ms Fluke ADMITTED she was not denied coverage and DID in fact receive medically indicated birth control?
Click to expand...

I didn't miss it the first time around. I haven't addressed it because it's irrelevant.
 
Aderleth said:
1) It's not completely impossible, although the existing data is admittedly murky. There have been a number of studies done, and they've concluded, generally, that the increase in preventative costs may or may not be offset by the decrease in materinity expenses (it depends, apparently, on the specific plan). I italicized maternity costs, because so far as I can tell no one has taken the further step of looking into cost savings related to having unwanted chiildren running around. I'm sure any given insurer would rather pay for the costs to prevent pregnancy rather than pay for the resultant child until he/she turns 18. The extra $18-20/patient is a pretty good deal compared to paying for a ****-ton of new dependents.

2) You're ignoring the other arguments that I've made that have nothing to do with cost (e.g. reducing abortion rates, providing medical care for various women's heallth issues).

3) Birth control isn't "typically" used for any one thing. More than half of all women (58% according to the Guttmacher institute) who use birth control use it at least partially for non-pregnancy issues. That number rises to a staggering 90% for teenage girls (who, in general, use it mostly if not exclusively for non-pregnancy related reasons).

Conclusion: The argument that this is about supporting a lifestyle choice is specious at best.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that Guttmacher link please.
 
Tucker Case said:
Close. Remove "expensive" and you are spot on. Biological conditions do not have monetary values.

And when you understand why that statement proves your position wrong, you'll be able to realize exactly where you have been disingenuous in your arguments.


(hint: adjectives describe the noun they are connected with, not nouns which appear later on in the sentence. "Uncertain" is an adjective.)

Pregnancy (noun) is a biological condition, not a loss (noun).
Click to expand...

The medical costs that people incur for their biological conditions are expensive, that does not prove anything wrong.
My arguments are not disingenuous.

It still does not disprove that insurance claims, where the resulting loss is from the intent and actions of the insured party, should be covered.
 
Tucker Case said:
Of course. That's how insurance works. Everyone receives the same coverage, but they only pay for those who utilize that service. Just like how they cover 100% of people for services related to cancer so that a much smaller group of people have access to cancer treatments.

Insurance only pays for what is utilized, not what is covered.
Click to expand...

That is not how insurance works.
You purchase additional coverage, at an additional cost, to cover additional things you want.

If that "is how insurance works" then the coverage would have already existed and everyone would have already purchased it.
Clearly that wasn't the case or they wouldn't have had a need for a mandate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom